Ryan Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room, persuasively argues that:
as the nation's population and electoral map shift South and West, the current Republican Party increasingly favors southern values (religion, morality, and tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, and privacy). The result? The party is in danger of losing crucial ground in the interior West - specifically in "leave-me-alone" states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana.
Wake up, Republicans!
25 Comments for “Wrong Turn.”
posted by Live Free or Die on
Don’t forget about NH which Bush won in 2000 but Kerry took in 04.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Losing to whom, pray tell?
Even assuming that Westerners have a problem with religion, morality, and tradition (which, if you’ve ever been to a rodeo, you won’t believe for a second), you’re postulating that they will switch to the party of higher taxes, more government control over land and resources, insane environmentalism, and gun control.
Somehow, I just don’t see that one taking place.
posted by kittynboi on
They may vote for third party candidates or just not vote.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
We’re fielding some very strong candidates in those states, and vote totals are going to be some of the highest we’ve ever seen. I hope the GOP continues its religious jihad, it will strengthen our electoral position greatly over the next several cycles!
posted by kittynboi on
NEL is right. Although putting it this was is slightly inflammatory, its the only wording I can think of; the Libertarians have often been viewed as the green party of the right. Meaning, they’re the biggest “spoilers” to the GOP and are the third party that takes votes away from the GOP, often from more moderate swing voters.
A few years ago this situation would not have existed, but now, as people are slowly but surely drifting away from being polarized in to one of the two major parties, I think we will see a return of voters unsatisfied with the major parties either allying themselves with third parties in hopes of making one such party a viable alternative, or the more common act of protest voting for a third party.
People are clearly losing confidence in Bush and the GOP, but it is true that this doesn’t translate in to votes for Dems. If this dissatisfaction grows with both parties, then things would be set up for a potential Ross Perot style candidate, or to a lesser extent, a Ralph Nader situation, in 2008, in which a third party candidate or a third party in general could get just enough media attention to swing an election.
These are just a few of the possibilites, as things are not as black and white as ND30 seems to want them to be.
posted by Bobby on
” things are not as black and white as ND30 seems to want them to be.”
—Sorry, but they are. We southeners and westeners do think in terms of black and white with many issues.
Ryan Sager’s new book is yet another attack on the right. Why should I or my party become moderates? Moderates are boring, undecided centrists that don’t know what to do. They are average, they lack passion.
If the republican party becomes moderate, politics will become boring. If that happens, less people will vote.
So I would tell Mr. Sager to stop trying to corrupt my party. It’s the democrats he should worry about, because they are becoming too left-wing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We’re fielding some very strong candidates in those states, and vote totals are going to be some of the highest we’ve ever seen. I hope the GOP continues its religious jihad, it will strengthen our electoral position greatly over the next several cycles!
And there we see an example of the problem.
If you think an anti-religious jihad is going to win you votes, take a look at the Democrats.
People in the West value history, custom, tradition, and morality. The fact that they tend to have a live-and-let-live attitude that is incompatible with the worst of religious fundamentalists should not be confused with people who use “Goldwater” or “libertarianism” to criticize religion, morality, or the rights of local governments and voters to decide their own affairs.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Ryan Sager’s new book is yet another attack on the right. Why should I or my party become moderates? Moderates are boring, undecided centrists that don’t know what to do. They are average, they lack passion.””””
Perhaps he’s referring to people who are ALREADY moderate or leaning in that direction rather than party liners such as you?
“”””f the republican party becomes moderate, politics will become boring. If that happens, less people will vote.””””
So people should not be moderates not because its the wrong position based on facts and reality but because moderates are boring? Do you have ANY regard or respect for the real world at all? Or is everything relative and is good only determined by whats good for the GOP at the ballot box?
“”””So I would tell Mr. Sager to stop trying to corrupt my party. It’s the democrats he should worry about, because they are becoming too left-wing.””””
But shouldn’t that be good, because then it won’t be boring?
And now for ND30;
“”””If you think an anti-religious jihad is going to win you votes, take a look at the Democrats.””””
Since when havbe the Libertarians engaged in an ANTI-religious Jihad? They haven’t. And NEL is saying that their prospects are good in that region, or at least he thinks they’re good, because there are people dissastisfied with the GOP who also dislike the Democrats and won’t vote for them. So saying that the democrats turned people off of them is actually helping his argument, because if they aren’t voting for the Democrats but are unhappy with the GOP, then that opens a window for NEL as those like him to bring them in to the Libertarian camp.
“”””The fact that they tend to have a live-and-let-live attitude that is incompatible with the worst of religious fundamentalists should not be confused with people who use “Goldwater” or “libertarianism” to criticize religion, morality, or the rights of local governments and voters to decide their own affairs.””””
The confusion you speak of is irrelevant, because if those people truly are live-and-let-live and incompatible with the fundies, then they WILL find themselves at odds with the GOP as it currently is, and the Libertarians can use that as a wedge to get their message in and get new members. The live-and-let-live attitude, if that really is what they have, can be used by libertarians to make an appealing case.
Further, you seem to be talking as if all Libertarians are somehow anti-religious, or as if at least a notable segment are. They aren’t. Even if they do criticize religion, which individual members may do, but the party itself, when made up of real libertarians, only criticizes religion if used as an excuse for the expansion of government power, but even if they criticize religion, it does not make them anti religious nor does it mean they are involved in an anti religious jihad. You can criticize religion without hating religion.
But part of the problem with this argument is that neither you nor Bobby seem willing to admit that, when Republicans become disenfranchised with the GOP and decide to join a party rather than become independents, more oftne than not they become Libertarians. Thats just how it is, and thats what NEL is hoping happens out west; that Republican voters who might not like the current state of the GOP for whatever reason can be brought to the Libertarian camp.
Yet you two go off on these tangents about democrats and anti-religious jihads and so on.
Whether or not it will happen is another thing, but at least try to engage the subject more honestly rather than blowing a bunch of smoke.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What kittynboi says is correct — I’d only add that I don’t think Republicans “become” libertarians. . . rather, the Republican party has a large bloc of libertarians who have thrown their lot in with that party as part of a “coalition.”
Right-wing activists (like ND30) have done their best to make the GOP politically unpalatable for them. Many have finished holding their noses and voting Republican — they’re tired of a “coalition” which tells them to sit down and shut up, which hikes taxes and spending, which increases the reach of government into everyone’s lives, which pursues anti-gay laws and bizarre efforts to impose narrow religious views on the populace, which builds up government schooling, which funds illegal warrantless wiretapping, etc.
So they’re not so much “turning Libertarian” as realizing that the Libertarian party is the party which will consistently defend their interests.
Given our very strong electoral performance in a number of elections out west, our two very strong Congressional showings in Texas — either of which will post in the high double-digits, and perhaps even pull out a victory, and large numbers of new members, we’re going to do well.
I’m not predicting a Libertarian majority in the next five years, but the Republicans’ “spousal abuse” of their libertarian contingent is over. They’re coming home and they’ll have far more influence over the political scene in an active, well-funded, strong Libertarian Party than as the battered spouses of the Party of Big Government (oh, and the Democrats). 😉
The Greens are certain to make inroads into the Democratic Party as well, after the Dems get their Congressional majority in November. Little, if anything will change, and the Dems are showing their illiberal colors with their attack on ABC’s documentary, and more recently, with Harry Reid’s attack on various faith groups who practice mutually-consenting nontraditional relationships (he’s demanding Mormons and others be arrested by the feds).
Best of all, our parties will have more elected officials in local office, increasing representation at state levels, perhaps for us Libertarians even a federal office or two. We’re going to be the “spoilers from hell,” and thank God for that. America needs parties willing to stand for small government, noniinterventionism, and personal liberty more than ever. If we cost big-government, intrusive Republicans dozens or hundreds of offices in the west, we’ll be doing our jobs — and in that much of a better position to ensure that a small-government, personal liberty candidate wins the seat next time. Preferably with our party 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Of course, that’s not to say we’re not also doing well in other parts of the country. For example, our candidate for Georgia governor is polling at 8%, with a campaign budget of less than $10,000. That’s the heart of GOP country. And in Democratic Maryland, we’ve got some good poll numbers coming out soon, but you can check the local newspapers for that. 🙂
posted by Bobby on
“Perhaps he’s referring to people who are ALREADY moderate or leaning in that direction rather than party liners such as you?”
—I don’t tow 100% the party line, I support legalizing prostitution for example. HOWEVER, the republican party cannot become pro-gun control for example. If they do, we’ll end up like New York where it doesn’t matter if you elect a democrat or republican. As for Sager, if you’re gonna write about the republican party, you better be inclusive. Funny how the preachers of tolerance, inclusivity, and diversity rarely practice how they preach.
“So people should not be moderates not because its the wrong position based on facts and reality but because moderates are boring?”
—Yes! Politics is an art, you have to excite people, get them to the polls. A politician that doesn’t excite anyone has no business being a politician. As for reality, give me a break. Every man defines reality in a different way. There are people out there blaiming America for 9/11. People who think animals have rights. States where kids are given sex ed surveys without even asking the parents for permission. As for “facts,” anyone can present you facts, anyone can make them up. The reality is that only ideology matters, and you vote for whoever has your ideology or is close enough. If the republican party becomes moderate, they will lose millions adn millions of voters.
” Do you have ANY regard or respect for the real world at all?”
—Do you? Why is it that guys like you always talk like they have all the answers?
“Or is everything relative and is good only determined by whats good for the GOP at the ballot box?”
—-Not quite. It’s about survival of the nation, protecting the status quo, stopping the progressives from making too much “progress.” You see, kittynboi, there is a culture war going on this country.
You want an example? Here’s one. I have a client who advertises to hispanics, which are 99% catholic. This client doesn’t allow me to write “Merry Christmas.” Why? Because 3 years ago a liberal president of a chamber of commerce complained that his religion wasn’t included. So because of 1 person, millions of people cannot be wished a “Merry Christmas.”
That’s progressives to them, no common sense. Of course, if Christians get offended, they don’t care. To my progressive client, offending millions of people to keep a tiny minority of Christian haters happy is more important than pleasing millions of people.
Keep electing democrats and this nation will be more secularized than the former Soviet Union. Maybe someday it will become a crime to have a religion and express it publicly.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the republican party cannot become pro-gun control for example
It already is pro-gun-control. For instance, one of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act provides for a national gun registry at the time of manufacture, and Republicans support gun control laws which require background checks and waiting periods — along with government approval — before an individual can purchase a weapon.
You see, kittynboi, there is a culture war going on this country.
Yes, and it’s about time it ended.
We’re betting that millions upon millions of voters are tired having right wing control freaks “warring” with left wing control freaks over who gets to use the government to force everyone to live the way control freaks want them to live.
Our poll numbers show we’re striking a nerve. Most people in America want to be left alone, not lectured by thrice-divorced corpulent Republicans on “the sanctity of marriage” or single-parent Democratic politicos on “what it takes to raise a child.”
posted by kittynboi on
NEL said most of what I could have said.
I also find it absurd that you seriously buy in to this “culture war” nonsense, Bobby. The only reason there is a culture war is because the right wing created it and other “wedge issues” to get votes.
But thats all okay with you, since you seem to think that getting votes and keeping the GOP in power and preserving the status quo is all that matters.
However, some of us want a bit more out of life than lying and distorting reality and creating conflict where little to none exists for the sake of keeping greedy corrupt power hungry politicians in office.
posted by Greg on
Bobby offers “The reality is that only ideology matters”
I find that an amazing and telling statement. Reality doesn’t matter at all, facts be damned, all that matters is the made up system in one’s head. That, it seems to me, is the surest path to Armageddon.
posted by Randy R. on
Bobby: Maybe someday it will become a crime to have a religion and express it publicly.
I pray to God everyday to make this so someday….
posted by Bobby on
Guys, I’m confussed, Kittynboi says there’s no culture war, and Randy R hopes someday it will become a crime to have a religion and express it publicly.
And Randy, even if you were being sarcastic, I don’t find your joke funny. There are plenty of people who think that way. People who want to secularize everything, remove “In God We Trust” from our coins, take the traditions and history of this country and flush it down the toilet.
You don’t think there’s a culture war? The latest is that now we’re not suppoed to call people who cross the border illegally, “illegal aliens.” The politically correct term now is “migrant workers.” According to your friends in the left, “no human being is illegal.”
This is why I say liberals have no sense of tradition or history. For years illegal aliens have been called just that. They’re aliens and they’re illegal. Now, we have to be “sensitive.” How nice, I guess that’s the kind of “progress.” progressives want.
And in the meantime, don’t play Red Hot Chili Peppers to terrorists, that’s cruel and unusual punishment according to your comrades on the left.
posted by dalea on
‘ incompatible with the worst of religious fundamentalists ‘
Are there a ‘best religious fundamentalists’ awards? Who would win it? IMHO religious fundamentalism is a blight upon the landscape and a menace to civilized living.
Bobby, facts are facts because they are provable. Not because they are made up. All you need do to prove something is provide references. Like name all these ‘leftists’ you keep talking about. Just exactly who says no person is illegal? Who does not practice the inclusivity they preach? Can you attach the names of actual living influential and prominent ‘leftists’ to any of these slanders you are throwing out?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Guys, I’m confussed, Kittynboi says there’s no culture war, and Randy R hopes someday it will become a crime to have a religion and express it publicly.””””
One person saying one thing doesn’t constitute much of a war.
“”””You don’t think there’s a culture war? The latest is that now we’re not suppoed to call people who cross the border illegally, “illegal aliens.” The politically correct term now is “migrant workers.” According to your friends in the left, “no human being is illegal.”””””
So what? Some people think you shouldn’t use a certain term. You’re under no obligation to abide by their wishes. You seem to think illegal alien is the best term. Are you waging a culture war by thinking that? Everyone thinks that someone or everyone else should or should not do something. And many of them voice their opinions on it.
Thats not a culture war. Thats people having opinions and voicing them.
“”””This is why I say liberals have no sense of tradition or history. For years illegal aliens have been called just that. They’re aliens and they’re illegal. Now, we have to be “sensitive.” How nice, I guess that’s the kind of “progress.” progressives want.””””
So liberals have no sense of tradition or history because they choose not to use a term you think they should? They don’t call illegal aliens illegal aliens, and you really have a problem with that? And you think that simply not doing what everyone has done before is not having a sense of tradition or history?
If so, then I have no sense of tradition or history in many things.
You seem to think people should continue doing certain things not because they are the best thing to do or because they have any provable value or can stand on their own merits, but because thats how they have been done before.
No Bobby. Things should be done or not done based on their actual value or merit determined through investigation, study, criticism, and inquiry. Not because thats how they’ve always been done.
“”””And in the meantime, don’t play Red Hot Chili Peppers to terrorists, that’s cruel and unusual punishment according to your comrades on the left.””””
Well, I suppose its better than playing the Barney music to them (as outlined in the book Men Who Stare At Goats.)
Perhaps you should stop screaming and screaming about all these heinous things the “left” does instead of addressing what people are saying to you.
posted by Bobby on
“You seem to think illegal alien is the best term. Are you waging a culture war by thinking that?”
—No I’m not. But if a group like La Raza, a minority, convinces the media not to use the term “illegal aliens,” then it’s a great example of political correctness. The media is more afraid of a loud minority than of the wishes of the majority. If a term is accurage, why change it? Why did the city of West Hollywood, California decided to change the term “pet owner” to “pet guardian?” Could it be that to them the idea of “owning” an animal is immoral? That’s a documented example of PC.
“Thats not a culture war. Thats people having opinions and voicing them.”
—And there’s nothing wrong with that, but the way it works is that one groups gets to voice all the opinions they want, while another group is silenced. There was an immigrant activist who came to a public school and said “Republicans Hate Latinos.” Did the minutement get invited to give a speech? No! That’s another example of PC.
“So liberals have no sense of tradition or history because they choose not to use a term you think they should? They don’t call illegal aliens illegal aliens, and you really have a problem with that? And you think that simply not doing what everyone has done before is not having a sense of tradition or history?”
—I do. If you respect tradition, you don’t try to reinvent things all the time. You don’t call a “bus driver” a “bus operator” or refer ot a “stewardess” as a “flight attendant.” You don’t change the name of a public park such as “Jefferson Davis” to another name not connected to the civil war. And you don’t refer to our founding fathers as “dead white men.”
Here’s an interesting example, there was a black woman that lead many slaves to freedom, she was famous for carrying a riffle. Decades later, she was honored with a painting. The original painting had the woman carry a riffle, the liberal elite in the black community objected, just a few crazy people, so history was rewritten and instead she was carrying a lanter.
I hate that, Kittynboi! And if you’ve read 1984, you would hate it to.
“No Bobby. Things should be done or not done based on their actual value or merit determined through investigation, study, criticism, and inquiry. Not because thats how they’ve always been done.”
—So does that mean that since preventing diabetes and heart disease has become popular, anything that causes diabetes and heart disease should be banned?
What happens when the scientists you love arrive at the wrong conclusions and force them upon you?
“Perhaps you should stop screaming and screaming about all these heinous things the “left” does instead of addressing what people are saying to you.”
—I prefer not to get personal unless I’m writing an e-mail or visiting a shrink. Sometimes I do get personal, but I don’t think that’s always appropriate.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””No I’m not. But if a group like La Raza, a minority, convinces the media not to use the term “illegal aliens,” then it’s a great example of political correctness. The media is more afraid of a loud minority than of the wishes of the majority. If a term is accurage, why change it? Why did the city of West Hollywood, California decided to change the term “pet owner” to “pet guardian?” Could it be that to them the idea of “owning” an animal is immoral? That’s a documented example of PC.””””
Well, no one in West CA is bound by law to say Pet Guardian instead of Pet Owner, are they? As for Illegal Alien, its ultimately the decision of the media on whether or not to use the term. Perhaps the minority somehow intimidated them, or perhaps the media changed because they found the arguments of the minority convincing?
If its the latter, is that still so bad?
“”””And there’s nothing wrong with that, but the way it works is that one groups gets to voice all the opinions they want, while another group is silenced.””””
Silenced by what? They aren’t silenced by law, are they? Is it by physical intimidation? If so, thats a crime. Nothing is going to drive ME to silence. If these people are so easily driven to silence then perhaps they just need to toughen up.
“”””I do. If you respect tradition, you don’t try to reinvent things all the time. You don’t call a “bus driver” a “bus operator” or refer ot a “stewardess” as a “flight attendant.” You don’t change the name of a public park such as “Jefferson Davis” to another name not connected to the civil war. And you don’t refer to our founding fathers as “dead white men.”””””
Calling a Bus Driver a Bus Operator is a pretty damned trivial issue isn’t it? There’s always the issue of WHY its being changed. If the reasons for doing so are rational and can be supported by reason and arguments, then its okay.
“”””Here’s an interesting example, there was a black woman that lead many slaves to freedom, she was famous for carrying a riffle. Decades later, she was honored with a painting. The original painting had the woman carry a riffle, the liberal elite in the black community objected, just a few crazy people, so history was rewritten and instead she was carrying a lanter.””””
I’ve never heard of this instance. They bjected to her carrying a gun? Was this painting done by the government with government money? Or was it a private individual? Were they FORCED to change it, or did they change it because the “black elite” convinced the person with sound rational arguments to do so?
“”””So does that mean that since preventing diabetes and heart disease has become popular, anything that causes diabetes and heart disease should be banned?””””
Such as? Gandhi once said Freedom is meaningless unless it connotes freedom to err. Being that I favor legalizing drugs, all drugs, and favor legal gun ownership, then its highly disingenuous of you to suggest I support this kind of position. I see this as another example of you not being able to take part in a debate with any intellectual honesty.
“”””What happens when the scientists you love arrive at the wrong conclusions and force them upon you?””””
Such as……..?
Force them how? Using the law? That would be unacceptable. But it seems the right has a loose definition of forcing things on people these days.
Didn’t the right wing once proclaim itself as the champion of truth, fact, and REASON? Bobby, so called conservatives like you whom favor emotionalism and subjectivity over rationality are embracing the same sort of reletivism in relation to facts and reality that the right once decried in the left.
posted by Bobby on
Kittynboi, everyone knows there’s a pressure to conform in every society. When liberals where the minority and “conservatives” didn’t even used that term to describe themselves, the pressure was on them. After liberals took control of college universities (U of Columbia only has 3 republican professors out of 100), they became the “mainstream.” That is why the president of Harvard was pressured, almost forced, to resign after he spoke “sexist” comments.
I guess we live in different worlds. You live in a world where everyone has a right to his opinion, I live in a world where everyone who doesn’t have the right opinion is persecuted.
“Nothing is going to drive ME to silence. If these people are so easily driven to silence then perhaps they just need to toughen up.”
—Granted, the same should be said about gays who demand sensitivity training for other employees. Those two need to toughen up. If somebody insults me, I respond in kind, I don’t need sensitivity training for my enemy.
“Calling a Bus Driver a Bus Operator is a pretty damned trivial issue isn’t it? There’s always the issue of WHY its being changed. If the reasons for doing so are rational and can be supported by reason and arguments, then its okay.”
—But the reasons where not rational, the reason of the name changed was that “bus driver” didn’t sound too good, while “bus operator” sounds more impressive. In some cities, you no longer see signs that say ‘men working,” but “people working” instead.
Few things are based on reason, Kittynboi, there is an advertising agency that allows people to bring their pets to work. They found out that it increases productivity, it makes the employees happy, it’s more relaxing, and it creates a better environment. So, while reason dictates other places of business should allow the same, most places of work don’t.
“I’ve never heard of this instance. They bjected to her carrying a gun? Was this painting done by the government with government money? Or was it a private individual? Were they FORCED to change it, or did they change it because the “black elite” convinced the person with sound rational arguments to do so?”
—Well, it was done with public grant money. And they did object to her carrying a gun, said it was a bad message for the neighborhood. They didn’t even bother to take a poll.
The problem, Kit, is a lack of common sense.
“Such as? Gandhi once said Freedom is meaningless unless it connotes freedom to err. Being that I favor legalizing drugs, all drugs, and favor legal gun ownership, then its highly disingenuous of you to suggest I support this kind of position. I see this as another example of you not being able to take part in a debate with any intellectual honesty.”
—-Let’s just say that at the very least we shouldn’t be making anymore things illegal. If I ever send my kids to school, I want them to have access to vending machines. I want them to be able to make choices like I did. Of course I can tolerate errors people make with freedom.
“”””What happens when the scientists you love arrive at the wrong conclusions and force them upon you?””””
Such as……..?
—-Such as the day they find a real “cure” for homosexuality and you’re forced to take it.
Marx said the road to hell was paved in good intentions. You can be sure those scientists are working for your own good. How would you feel if your next job interview involved undressing, peeing into a cup, getting a cholesterol level, and your pay and compensation depended almost exclusively on those factors? At my company they give you a day off if you keep good personal fitness, do you think that will always be optional? I think not.
“Bobby, so called conservatives like you whom favor emotionalism and subjectivity over rationality are embracing the same sort of reletivism in relation to facts and reality that the right once decried in the left.”
—Well, you got me there. Some conservatives have complained about that, they say we’re just as vitriolic as Michael Moore. Maybe we are.
posted by Mark on
Republicans and Democrats are about equally awful, but I’m rooting for the Democrats in November as I think divided government is best for the country and I want Bush to suffer.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I guess we live in different worlds. You live in a world where everyone has a right to his opinion, I live in a world where everyone who doesn’t have the right opinion is persecuted.””””
I’m having some trouble making sense of this.
“”””Granted, the same should be said about gays who demand sensitivity training for other employees.””””
I’ve been around a lot of gays and have yet to meet any who ACTUALLY advocate this. How many are there that REALLY support this and how much of it is right wing smoke, and how much of it is straights claiming they represent gays, much like I think most of the “anti racist” stuff out there, the more extreme stuff, is usually from whites claiming to represent racial minorities.
I’ve yet to meet a gay who advocates this, OR a workplace that has it. (And I was a employed by a large company that had full benefits for same sex partners.) Actually, I have never personally known ANYONE who worked ANYWHERE that had “sensitivity training” courses.
“”””But the reasons where not rational, the reason of the name changed was that “bus driver” didn’t sound too good, while “bus operator” sounds more impressive. “”””
So it was changed to make a title sound more like a profession? Whatever. That doesn’t NEGATIVELY affect anything, and the title simply being different is not in and of itself a bad thing. Unless of course you can demonstrate harm it has caused, which I doubt you can.
“”””In some cities, you no longer see signs that say ‘men working,” but “people working” instead.””””
I guess I haven’t been to those cities, but assuming this is true; it still communicates the same message. No one is going to be confused. Since we’ve established thats not an issue, show me some OTHER way in which this has caused real quantifiable harm?
“”””Few things are based on reason, Kittynboi,””””
And that is the cause of the sorry state of the world today.
“”””there is an advertising agency that allows people to bring their pets to work. They found out that it increases productivity, it makes the employees happy, it’s more relaxing, and it creates a better environment. “”””
Okay.
“”””So, while reason dictates other places of business should allow the same, most places of work don’t.””””
And? I don’t need some obscure example to show me that people don’t follow reason. The only evidence you need of that is how many damned churches aare still packed every sunday and the current tide of ignorant muslims protesting over some old guy named Ratzinger criticizing them.
“”””Well, it was done with public grant money. And they did object to her carrying a gun, said it was a bad message for the neighborhood. They didn’t even bother to take a poll.””””
Can you cite any relevant articles or accounts of this? And not just some biased right wing rag, but also something that gives their side of the story? AND can you prove it was done with public grant money rather than just asserting it?
“”””Let’s just say that at the very least we shouldn’t be making anymore things illegal.””””
No, we shouldn’t.
“””” If I ever send my kids to school, I want them to have access to vending machines. I want them to be able to make choices like I did. Of course I can tolerate errors people make with freedom.””””
Then tolerate it. You come across like someone who CAN’T tolerate it and can’t handle it and who whines that readitionalism isn’t enforced at gunpoint.
“”””Such as the day they find a real “cure” for homosexuality and you’re forced to take it.””””
I expect that day to come the same day they figure out how to make 2+2=5. The religious and traditional worlds ALREADY think they have a “cure” and would love to force everyone to take it, so your fear of science on these grounds yet the trust you put in tradition is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Your mistrust of science on these grounds is nothing but a lie if you don’t hold religion and tradition to the same standard.
“”””You can be sure those scientists are working for your own good.””””
Which REAL scientists using legitimate scientific methods are looking for a “cure” to homosexuality? None. Practically the ENTIRE scientific community that has any relevant connection to this matter is unanimous in their agreement that it is not something to be cured. Not only that, but they don’ have any kind of executive or legislative power to force anyone to do anything. If scientists did, we wouldn’t have all these fights about creationist lies in public schools.
Once again you fail bobby. You create ghosts out of thin air and try to use scare tactics because someone else puts their trust in something other than tradition, which upsets you.
You seem afraid of science forcing people to do this or that, but you obviously fail to hold “tradition”, religion, and local government to the same standards, which all but makes you an intellectual liar.
“”””At my company they give you a day off if you keep good personal fitness, do you think that will always be optional? I think not.””””
Perhaps you seem to have bad luck and encounter all the evil leftist things that no one else seems to run across.
“””” Some conservatives have complained about that,””””
Then there ARE good conservatives, and according to your very statement they seem to be the complete opposite of what you are.
You aren’t going to win any arguments with this emotionaalism, appeal to traditionalism and authority, and other things that more or less are entirely based on everyone accepting your claims on your say so.
The vast majority of everyone else here seems to prefer fact based thought and reason. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable on a site that only seeks to coddle your emotionalism and worship of the status quo for no sake other than worshiping the status quo?
If something is broke, you fix it. You don’t leave it broken just because thats how its always been.
posted by Bobby on
“I’ve been around a lot of gays and have yet to meet any who ACTUALLY advocate this. How many are there that REALLY support this and how much of it is right wing smoke,”
—Most people aren’t into politics, Kit, they let the activists do all the work. All my right wing friends see is the crazy gays screaming, they rarely see reasonable gays.
“Actually, I have never personally known ANYONE who worked ANYWHERE that had “sensitivity training” courses.”
—-Companies like American Express and others have it.
“And? I don’t need some obscure example to show me that people don’t follow reason. The only evidence you need of that is how many damned churches aare still packed every sunday and the current tide of ignorant muslims protesting over some old guy named Ratzinger criticizing them.”
—-Muslims are EXTREMELY sensitive about their faith and values, I think they’re not used to being criticized. They get offended by a cartoon of Mohammed. Big deal, Christians had to deal with a Vigin Mary covered in elephant dung and a Jesus sunk into a vat of urine. Christians didn’t like it, but they didn’t riot.
However, your complaint of churches being packed on sundays is unwarranted. Even if it was ignorant, there’s no difference between a man who lives his life worried about sickness and one who seeks God for all his problems. When it comes to fanatical worship, there’s more than religion to go around.
“Can you cite any relevant articles or accounts of this? And not just some biased right wing rag, but also something that gives their side of the story?”
—Tonguetied.us always provides the source of their articles. If you don’t want to believe it, fine. I don’t believe the crap posted on anti-war.com
“AND can you prove it was done with public grant money rather than just asserting it?”
—Do you provide a link every time you opine? No. So don’t expect me to do the same, I don’t have the time.
“Then tolerate it. You come across like someone who CAN’T tolerate it and can’t handle it and who whines that readitionalism isn’t enforced at gunpoint.”
—I tolerate a lot, I tolerate junk e-mails coworkers send, I tolerate opinions I’d rather not hear, I tolerate my neighbor’s crappy rap music (as long as it doesn’t invade my apartment). The reason people think I’m intolerant is because I pass judgement. HOWEVER, there’s a big difference between saying “this is wrong” an actually enforcing it. That’s why I support legalizing drugs, I don’t use them, but I want others to make that choice for themselves.
“I expect that day to come the same day they figure out how to make 2+2=5. The religious and traditional worlds ALREADY think they have a “cure” and would love to force everyone to take it,”
—They don’t, most honest evangelicals advocate chastity and denial of your feelings, which is no cure at all. The danger is the day they can put an implant on your brain to turn your straight, or to eliminate all your gay needs.
In a collectivist society where “what’s good for you” is more important than what you want, things can be forced upon the individual. Good people are trying to hold the tide against the collectivization of life as we know it.
“so your fear of science on these grounds yet the trust you put in tradition is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Your mistrust of science on these grounds is nothing but a lie if you don’t hold religion and tradition to the same standard.”
—I don’t hate religion as much as you do, but I don’t fear it. Religious people haven’t stopped me from doing what I want. The smoking bans, the war on obesity, the TSA’s gestapo tactics, all of that is the product of science, not religion. “Public Health” is becoming the new mantra of science. And that’s scary, think about the day when an AIDS test is no longer confidential, but information that can be shared with the entire country in the name of public health.
“Which REAL scientists using legitimate scientific methods are looking for a “cure” to homosexuality? None. Practically the ENTIRE scientific community that has any relevant connection to this matter is unanimous in their agreement that it is not something to be cured.”
—Scientists like psychologists can be compromised, there is money for that kind of research. The ex-gays in Utah that use electro-shock treatment are doctors. You need to be more skeptical, at least remember what they did to blacks during the Tuskeegee experiments, how they were infected with syphilis on purpose.
“Not only that, but they don’ have any kind of executive or legislative power to force anyone to do anything. If scientists did, we wouldn’t have all these fights about creationist lies in public schools.”
—First of all, creationists have been sued numerous times by the ACLU. Trial lawyers often use scientific testimony, there are doctors getting paid to testify whatever the lawyer wants them to claim. Science works with congress and the lawyers to advance the causes they want.
And they are succesful, every anti-tobaco junk lawsuit is filled with “scientific” evidence.
“You seem afraid of science forcing people to do this or that, but you obviously fail to hold “tradition”, religion, and local government to the same standards, which all but makes you an intellectual liar.”
—I am not a liar, I accept compromises which is different. I don’t want the feds to be forcing my state to do their bidding. Of course, if I were to think like you, I would trust neither the feds nor the state government. That kind of nihilism is not for me.
“You aren’t going to win any arguments with this emotionaalism, appeal to traditionalism and authority, and other things that more or less are entirely based on everyone accepting your claims on your say so.”
—I’m not here to win arguments, I’m here to debate.
“The vast majority of everyone else here seems to prefer fact based thought and reason.”
—Oh please, this site is just like any other. You got the queers who hate Bush, the queers who love Bush, the ones who hate the war and so on. Just because you’re a moderate who’s not tied up to any ideology doesn’t mean everyone is like you.
“If something is broke, you fix it. You don’t leave it broken just because thats how its always been.”
—-Ok, what would you like to fix? What changes do you want on society?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Most people aren’t into politics, Kit, they let the activists do all the work. All my right wing friends see is the crazy gays screaming, they rarely see reasonable gays.””””
What implications does this even have for this discussion?
“”””Muslims are EXTREMELY sensitive about their faith and values, I think they’re not used to being criticized. They get offended by a cartoon of Mohammed.””””
Thats an accurate assesment. Until recent years, they lived in relative isolation under their foolish theocratic tyrannies and never truly saw much of what was happening outside their borders. But thanks to improvements in communication, even the most backwards regions eventually learn of the goings on in the world, and for the first time in many of their pathetic sorry lives, Muslims must face that not everyone else lives by muslim rules.
“”””Christians had to deal with a Vigin Mary covered in elephant dung and a Jesus sunk into a vat of urine. Christians didn’t like it, but they didn’t riot.””””
I see that as a triumph of captialism. Consumrism and comfortable standards of living have domesticated and neutered our religious fanatics.
As have the examples of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
“”””However, your complaint of churches being packed on sundays is unwarranted. Even if it was ignorant, there’s no difference between a man who lives his life worried about sickness and one who seeks God for all his problems. When it comes to fanatical worship, there’s more than religion to go around.””””
Such as fanatical Bush worship, fanatical free market worship, fanatical worship of tradition and the military, and thats just on the extreme right wing side of things. I can expand further outward from there.
“”””Tonguetied.us always provides the source of their articles. If you don’t want to believe it, fine. I don’t believe the crap posted on anti-war.com””””
Why is this the first time you’ve ever mentioned this website? You talk of it as if everyone here knows what it is. If this is where you get your information, its the first I’ve heard of it.
“””””Do you provide a link every time you opine? No. So don’t expect me to do the same, I don’t have the time.””””
If you aren’t prepared to do it when called upon to prove your assertions, then don’t whine when your assertions aren’t accepted at face value.
“””””I tolerate a lot, I tolerate junk e-mails coworkers send, I tolerate opinions I’d rather not hear, I tolerate my neighbor’s crappy rap music (as long as it doesn’t invade my apartment). The reason people think I’m intolerant is because I pass judgement. HOWEVER, there’s a big difference between saying “this is wrong” an actually enforcing it. That’s why I support legalizing drugs, I don’t use them, but I want others to make that choice for themselves.
“””
Pass all the judgement you want. I’m not a tolerant person by any means and I don’t advocate my intolerance being written in to law. You aren’t particularly tolerant either. OF course, I simply define intolerant as hatred for something I deem inferior, such as religion, islam, religion, on so forth. I have no problem with being intolerant.
“”””They don’t, most honest evangelicals advocate chastity and denial of your feelings, which is no cure at all. The danger is the day they can put an implant on your brain to turn your straight, or to eliminate all your gay needs.””””
That, of course, is assuming that is even possible, which I don’t think it is. And most “honest” fundies would prefer that such chastity and denial be REQUIRED of everyone.
“”””In a collectivist society where “what’s good for you” is more important than what you want, things can be forced upon the individual. Good people are trying to hold the tide against the collectivization of life as we know it.””””
Sounds like what the religious right and the dominionists want for everyone.
“”””I don’t hate religion as much as you do,””””
No one does, unfortunately.
“”””Religious people haven’t stopped me from doing what I want. “”””
Not for lack of trying. They’ve defended sodomy laws, they try to ban the sale of porn, intimidate adult businesses in to closing down, get concerts cancelled, and so on and so on.
“”””think about the day when an AIDS test is no longer confidential, but information that can be shared with the entire country in the name of public health.””””
And who was it that suggested gays wear a “Warning label” akin to cigarette warning labels? A republican.
“”””Scientists like psychologists can be compromised, there is money for that kind of research. The ex-gays in Utah that use electro-shock treatment are doctors. You need to be more skeptical, at least remember what they did to blacks during the Tuskeegee experiments, how they were infected with syphilis on purpose.”””
I’m aware of thousands upon thousands more examples of thse kind of abuses than you can ever hope to be. Everyone can be compromised, including your precious religious tradionalists, as your foolish words point out by revealing that its the ex gay morons in UTah, who are 99% likely to be a mormon operation.
“”””First of all, creationists have been sued numerous times by the ACLU.”””
Technically anyone can sue anyone, especially if there are valid legal grounds for doing so, and creationists are taken to court for trying to push religious dogma in public schools, not for simply having opinions they keep to themselves.
“”””Trial lawyers often use scientific testimony, there are doctors getting paid to testify whatever the lawyer wants them to claim. Science works with congress and the lawyers to advance the causes they want.””””
So does everything and everyone else. Thats a far cry from thinking we live in a scientific dictatorship. If we did, I doubt researchers would have to go through so much paperwork for grant money.
“”””And they are succesful, every anti-tobaco junk lawsuit is filled with “scientific” evidence.””””
Well, was the evidence true? That IS a valid concern.
“”””I am not a liar, I accept compromises which is different. I don’t want the feds to be forcing my state to do their bidding. Of course, if I were to think like you, I would trust neither the feds nor the state government. That kind of nihilism is not for me.””””
I prefer to think of it as caution and realism as opposed ot nihilism. I trust myself to make decisions for me, not government on any level, nor tradition, religion, or anything external.
“”””I’m not here to win arguments, I’m here to debate.””””
Well, I assumed the purpose of a debate was to convince the other side of the merits of your position and eventually win them over?
“”””. Just because you’re a moderate who’s not tied up to any ideology doesn’t mean everyone is like you.””””
Well, I think that it would do a lot of us a world of good if people in general were less tied up to ideology and sought independent thought. These days, politics is far to partisan and people are far to loyal to their party/ideology of choice, and there is sadly little dissent. And when there is dissent, those who voice it become pariahs and and hounded by those who wish them to tow the party line.
People need to define themselves not as a label but by their own positions, because I doubt very few people in either party hold to the partys platform 100%. But in these times of polarization everyone is expected to support the party no matter what. What we have in todays political climate, in both the liberal and conservative worlds, is more akin to Stalinism than fascism or any other system, where all that matters is politics, power, and loyalty to the dogma of the status quo.
“”””Ok, what would you like to fix? What changes do you want on society?””””
Legalize drugs, prostitution, perhaps a bit looser restrictions on gun laws. (I support waiting periods, but for some reason background checks frighten me, though its a largely irrational fear I can’t shake.) We need a clear constitutionally protected right to privacy, we should do away with any notion that “obscenity” is not protected by the first amendment, because all too often that simply becomes and excuse to go after anything people don’t like under the banner of “decency”.
Single payer healthcare would be nice, but its not an issue im particularly devoted too. To me its nice as in it would also be nice to have a 1940’s Rolls Royce or some other luxury. I think the public education system needs improvement but thats too long a list of things to get in to here.
On a more abstract level; less polarization between parties, more oppurtunities for third parties, rigirous enforcement of seperation of church and state, less grandstanding and political haymaking (a perfect example of this is the V-Chip. Few people use it, and before it was introduced no one was asking for it. It was just something politicians cooked up to score political points.) Essentially, I would rather it not be politics as usual, and that there be less greed, idiocy, glory seeking, pandering, pork, etc. in politcs. Of course, solving that is about as easy as single handedly building a rocket and flying to the moon.
I’m not out to change manhole to personhole, or things like that. But at the same time, its of no concern to me if it happens.